The Busman's Holiday

Friday, May 24, 2013

If you enjoy following Pittsburgh mayoral politics, you may find this video interesting. 12 times during our 2 minute and 41 second conversation, City Council President Darlene Harris stuck to her four word talking point about her intentions. Here's a link to WTAE video of my Q&A with Harris about her switching her registration from Democrat to Independent in order to qualify to run for mayor in the fall race. There are some interesting nuggets hidden KMOO #7 and KMOO #10: her pause before her answer about fundraising and her comments about Mayor Ravenstahl.

I'd reported on Wednesday about the prospect of an Independent mayoral candidate running against Democratic primary winner Bill Peduto and Republican Josh Wander. That story includes a clip of Councilman Corey O'Connor, whose long-term political future is sometimes the subject of speculation, laughing off the idea he'd jump in to this race. (He can't and he doesn't want to. He remains registered a Democrat, he now backs Peduto after staying neutral during the primary, and he's getting married next month.)

Here's a transcript of my Darlene Harris Q&A. I numbered her KMOO count for handy reference.

Q: "Are you planning to run as an independent for mayor in the fall?"

A: "I am just keeping my options open." (1)

Q: "Keeping your options open means what?"

A: "Keeping my options open." (2)

Q: "Did you change your party registration, when did you do that , and explain the significance of that?"

A: "Well, there's been a lot going on in the city, and I wanted to make sure that I left all options open." (3)

Q: "Obviously, if for some reason Mayor Ravenstahl left office, you would become acting mayor. If you were acting mayor, is that the only circumstance under which you could run as an independent?"

A: "I guess that would be the only way that you could run as an independent."

Q: "Well, I mean you could, as council president. But *would* you, unless you became acting mayor?"

A: "All I'm doing is leaving my options open." (4)

Q: "So you don't rule out running as an independent for mayor, even if Mayor Ravenstahl serves out his term?"

A: "Just keeping all options open." (5)

Q: "So , keeping your options open means that you're an independent, you changed your registration, so that you may run for mayor?"

A: "Just keeping the options open." (6)

Q: "And have you collected money for a mayor's race yet?"

A: "Just keeping the options open." (7)

Q: "Raised any money?"

A: "(2 second pause) Just keeping the options open." (8)

Q: "Have you gotten any encouragement from anyone to do this?"

A: "I just am leaving all options open." (9)

Q: "Is Mayor Ravenstahl encouraging you to do this?"

A: "Absolutely not."

Q: "Is he discouraging you?"

A: "He actually -- we have had our times."

Q: "In his discouraging you considering this?"

A: "No. He hasn't encouraged or discouraged me. I don't think he even realizes what has happened."

Q: "By when will you make a final decision on whether or not you'll run for mayor as an independent?"

A: "Uh, time will tell."

Q: "When exactly did you change your registration?"

A: "When it was time to do so."

Q: "In other words, prior to 30 days before the primary?"

A: "Exactly."

Q: "So, you've been strategizing for a while?"

A: "Exactly."

Q: "What should Pittsburghers make of this?"

A: "To keep my options open, and we'll see in the future." (10)

Q: "So, basically this would mean that the primary wasn't the last word, so far as you're concerned, about what the field will be in the fall."

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's somber and reflective news conference on Friday had a few lighter moments. Some came when the mayor -- in response to questions -- revealed the existence of his chosen mystery candidate.

This unnamed person is Ravenstahl's favorite to jump into the mayor's race to succeed him, now that he's dropped out. Here are my notes of that Q&A , starting with Jon Delano's questions that suddenly brought laughter and smiles from the mayor.

Q: "Mayor, there are only two candidates, two announced candidates to succeed you --"

A: "I'm sure that will change soon."(Reporters' laughter.)

Q: "My question is, are you encouraging others to get in this race or to look at this?"

Q: "I want to come back to this candidate you that would like to see run for mayor."

A: "Yes." (The mayor chuckles again, and takes a drink of water.)

Q: "Have you spoken to this candidate?"

(There's a pause.)A: "No." (The mayor smiles again.)

Q: "You have no indication whether this person wants to run for mayor or not?"

A: "Correct."

Q: "Do you intend to speak to this candidate and encourage this person to run?"

A: "Yes." (Smiling.)

Q: "And there's nothing more you're going to tell us?"

A: "Not right now, no."

I then joined in with my own followup questions.

Q: "Just to be clear, do you envision, in a sense, a surrogate of the Ravenstahl administration to carry on the agenda of the administration and the Ravenstahl administration team? Do you think that's the best course for your people and for the city?"

A: "I'm sorry, say that again?"

Q: "Do you envision a surrogate candidate who would represent -"

A: "Oh."

Q: "-- the accomplishments of the Ravenstahl administration , your staff, your team, your vision, to represent your team in the primary?"

A: "No, I don't think so." (Now with a more serious and formal tone.)

Q: "In the general election?"

A: "No."

Q: "So when you say there's someone you envision that you could support, you don't see that person as keeping the Ravenstahl team together to do that?"

A: "Um, first of all, we're speculating, um…"

Q: "You said yes to a series of quest --"

A: "No, no, no, I know. It's -- well, first of all, I don't know. (Laughs.) We're speculating. I don't know what that person may or may not do. You know, so."

Q: "But you have someone in mind?"

A: "I do."

Later, I asked a final followup.

Q: "Is your brother a candidate that you would like to see run for mayor?"

(Reporters' laughter. The mayor shakes head and chuckles.)A: "No."(Louder reporters' laughter. The mayor's mother then jokingly chimed in with a loud "no" of her own, gesturing with her arms for added emphasis.)

Delano then added:

Q: "Sorry I opened this."

A: "No, that's okay. I kind of opened it because I answered your question."

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Pittsburgh Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak may be joking about the attack billboard in her district targeting her, but Lamar Advertising is deadly serious about it. The billboard company's sign shows her smiling with the caption "Worst economy in 50 years, Natalia Rudiak says: Let's raise taxes". (The billboard doesn't elaborate that what the councilwoman is proposing to tax is billboard advertising.)

The PG reports Lamar has put up similar signs targeting the bill's co-sponsor Council President Darlene Harris and plans on placing more these billboards across town. Reporter Joe Smydo quotes Lamar's attorney Jonathan Kamin as saying "we just wanted to raise public awareness about the tax that the city of Pittsburgh is looking to impose on businesses that choose to advertise".

Scenic Pittsburgh is firing back at Lamar Advertising, describing the billboards as a "misleading, unfair, and bullying tactic". Its Executive Director Mike Dawida says "billboards lower property values by 30% and pay almost no taxes; home and business owners pay thousands of dollars in property taxes while billboards pay nearly nothing". The group previously framed the issue by claiming on it's website that an "Out-of-State Corporation Makes Millions off of the City Skyline – (and) Pays Less than $10 in Local Taxes".

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Councilman Patrick Dowd tweets that his legislation to regulate drilling inside Pittsburgh city limits lands on the desks of Planning Commission members today.

Pittsburgh City Paper has reaction from the sponsor of the complete ban on drilling in the city -- a ban which still stands unchallenged in court. Notably, former Councilman Doug Shields posted two comments on the City Paper story which, combined, are longer than than Chris Potter's story itself.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Mayor Ravenstahl tells me he's prepared to use Pittsburgh Firefighters, suburban EMTs (emergency medical technicians) and EMS managers to fill the gaps, if the paramedics union goes on strike. Here's a transcript of my question and answer session with the mayor.

Q: On the negotiations with paramedics, should Pittsburghers be worried -- are you worried -- about what impact this may have if things turn more sour in these talks?

A: "I'm not worried and residents shouldn't be worried. I have talked with our public safety folks and am adamant about the fact that we will keep people safe. If they decide to strike, we have a plan in place to respond to that. And we should not see any interruption of service and I believe that we'll be able to keep people safe."

"So, we're going to hold the line. We believe that we've negotiated a fair deal. And we believe we've negotiated a deal that will actually make residents safer in the long term. That will put more ambulances on the street. It will transfer the rescue work from EMS over to Fire, to use some of those firefighters that have that ability, and free up paramedics and ambulances to do more work. That'll put two more ambulances on the street. Our response times already are not good enough. They need to improve, and this will improve the overall delivery of services in public safety."

"They want to make it about our union versus their union, that's not what this is about. This is about delivery of safety services for all residents. Whether it's a firefighter, a paramedic, a police officer, the resident doesn't care. The resident doesn't care. The resident wants to be safe and this is going to make our city safer."

Q: What about the paramedics union suggesting that somehow the best medical care or response isn't adequately addressed under these changes that you want?

A: "Well, we disagree with that, (number) one, because when you look at the history of rescue work. First of all, we have a large number, I think it's over 300 firefighters who are trained EMTs. So, these individuals have expertise and training to do it. And a large number of rescue calls, in fact, don't even require medical service. A lot of the times they are people who are stuck in elevators. Or, you know, they find themselves in a situation where they can't get out of some place. So these are not emergencies in a lot of cases. These are not issues that need medical attention. In some cases, do they? Yes, but in that case we have EMTs and others that can do it."

"So, we're not putting this on the table in any way to jeopardize pubic safety. In fact, we're going to enhance it, and that's why we're so adamant about it. Previous studies, Tri Data, for example, called for this to happen. The Act 47 team (the city's financial overseers) put it in their plan, and now here we are, attempting to implement it and we think we're doing the right thing by the taxpayers."

(While discussing the history of the paramedics contract talks, the mayor added this next comment, which prompted my follow up questions.)

A: "…If they go on strike, we're prepared to deal that."

Q: If there's a strike, would EMS managers be sufficient to cover, or would you pull people from the Fire Bureau to cover?

A: "We would do a combination of both. We believe the EMS managers and the paramedics that are there now would team up with a trained EMT that happens to be a firefighter now, and that's how we would handle the situation. We believe we have enough manpower, at least in the short term, to do that. It's not uncommon, even under the current system for us to call mutual aid and have others come in and help. So, if we need to do that, we'll do that just like we do now."

"The pubic safety director and I have had numerous conversations about this. Obviously, we are concerned if a strike happens, but we are also prepared. And he has given me his word and I believe, just given what he's shown me, that we're prepared to do this in the event of a strike. We hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, we're prepared for it.

Q: So, suburban EMTs and paramedics could wind up responding to Pittsburgh emergencies under this cooperative deal, existing cooperative deal?

A: "Well, and people may be surprised to know, they do now. They do now in a lot of cases, so that wouldn't change. That happens. It's called 'mutual aid' in the event that we are, you know, our ambulances are out and we don't have the ability to get to a call, suburban communities come in now and help us. So that's not different. There are times where we do the same for them, and it's called mutual aid. So, that may happen. But I want to be clear that that's not any change in current practices. That happens currently under our existing agreements."

Q: And the firefighters union wouldn't balk at the idea of being pressed into service?

A: "We've had discussions with them and we expect that they would be cooperative, yeah."

Monday, November 8, 2010

UPDATE 2: Reactions from City Council members to Mayor Ravenstahl's address which warned of a coming "financial nightmare" in 2016 :

Council Finance Chair Bill Peduto:

• "Under his scenario which he presented today which is using one sided numbers, sure you can make that argument. But is it reality? No. Not unless we choose to go down that path. That's a path I will never travel."

• "We had a scolding, if nothing else,of city council -- and it wasn't even based on reality."

• "He's still trying to push an idea, even at the point of today, which was harmful to Pittsburgh."

Council President Darlene Harris (via written statement):

• "We have no intention of selling ourselves short, and no plan to initiate debt that will destroy future generations."

• "We also have no intention of foregoing billions of dollars of revenue over the next 50 years so that investment bankers can drain the life out of our City."

•"...In the coming weeks we will be actively working - day and night - to produce a decent, working solution to the immediate crisis, and thereafter this body intends to address the very core of the issue - the pension funds themselves.

Councilman Doug Shields:

•"I was little chagrined, to say the least, to hear that it's all council's fault, number one. Number two, there is a viable plan that the council enacted on the table."

• "I never saw a mayor come into the chamber and essentially insult the council."

• "It was like, 'okay, I'm coming into council to yell at the council about something, to basically throw this in the council's face, and blame them for everything."

Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak:

• "He said the actions of a few. I think there was clear majority that rejected the one option. there are still other options on the table."

UPDATE 1: Here are some key quotes from Mayor Ravenstahl's budget message delivered to City Council. (I posted a version of this earlier via mobile e-mail, but thumbtyping via BlackBerry leaves something to be desired in the way of formatting.) I've also expanded some quotes.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

• "It appears that Pittsburgh must return to the years of deficit spending..."

• "Council...is forcing us into a financial culture that looks too much like our past".

• "I submit five year plan today that does not raise taxes. That does not make draconian cuts to basic city services."

• "...makes sure that Pittsburghers can get through the next five years unharmed, even when confronted by pension payments that double and triple..."

• "We will do that by using our fund balance to ensure that we survive through 2015."

• "In 2016, the first year following the five year plan, our fund balance will be depleted."

• "(In 2016) we will be forced to make a $91 Million payment to the state pension system.."

• "...that is a quarter of our city's entire budget...more than it costs to operate any city departmentt."